TRUMP "MISSED THE DEADLINE" TO CALL OFF TX GERRYMANDERING; CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE “BEAUTIFUL MAPS”

Always in His Presence said:

already linked.

Click to expand...

Your "link" came up as a stream of nonsense characters across my whole screen when I hovered over it.

essentialsaltes said:

Asked and answered. This would require a constitutional amendment, and citizens would no longer have a representative who lives in and represents a particular district.

Click to expand...

Any state could chose that method (along with all "at large") at anytime they wished. I had that thought earlier this week with the "VA" vote. Effectively what Virginians have chosen is for all seats to be elected by a statewide vote.

Say it aint so said:

There is a bill to legislate gerrymandering illegal. It was drafted by the Dems and shut down by the Reps; every time.
It's almost as if one has to use gerrymandering to increase their power so they can use it to make gerrymandering illegal.
That is of course if it doesn't get shot down by the conservative SCOTUS which it has been, and is about to take another hit.

Click to expand...

When has the SCOTUS shot down any bills against gerrymandering in regards to House of Representatives districts? (they may have shot down bills that try to do it in regards to state legislature districts--as they should, because Congress doesn't have power to legislate those)

Hans Blaster said:

Any state could chose that method (along with all "at large") at anytime they wished. I had that thought earlier this week with the "VA" vote. Effectively what Virginians have chosen is for all seats to be elected by a statewide vote.

Click to expand...

Virginians haven't made them be by statewide vote; even with as strong as they gerrymandered things, the prediction is they'd end up with 10 Democratic districts and 1 Republican district, meaning it's 10-1. An at-large election, if won by Democrats, would be 11-0 (an at-large election would also carry the risk that Republicans could somehow eke out a win in a statewide election in which case they'd get all 11 seats).

However, states can't do at-large elections or proportional representation even if they wanted to, because that's forbidden by federal law. Behold 2 U.S. Code § 2c:

In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).

The 91st Congress was 1969-1971, if anyone is curious. As one can see, this requires states to have single-member electoral districts for the House of Representatives. At-large elections as well as proportional representation (even a mixture of proportional representation and single-member districts) are therefore prohibited. For a state to set that up, this law would need to be changed. Which, of course, Congress can do. Congress could not only choose to allow at-large elections and proportional representation, but it could require states to do either for the House of Representatives if it passed a law doing so. However, until such time as this law is changed, states are required to have single-member districts for the House.

A state is fully free to have their own legislature be done via at-large or proportional representation, though, and Congress can neither require nor prohibit any manner of election of them, beyond any rules that are already in the Constitution. As far as I'm aware, though, all states use single-member districts for their legislature.

One thing I'm not sure about is whether Congress can do a nationwide proportional representation vote by law. It definitely can require proportional representation within each state (i.e. if one state has 40% vote for a party, 40% of the seats for that state go to that party), but I'm not sure if they can have votes in one state affect the Representatives from another state, which is what a national proportional vote would do (i.e. if 40% of the country votes for a particular party, 40% of seats go to that party). That one would probably require an amendment. But proportional representation within each state could be required by a federal law.

JSRG said:

When has the SCOTUS shot down any bills against gerrymandering in regards to House of Representatives districts? (they may have shot down bills that try to do it in regards to state legislature districts--as they should, because Congress doesn't have power to legislate those)

Click to expand...

I think we have already been down this road haven't we?

probinson said:

I didn't say Democrats shouldn't have voted for gerrymandering to preserver their integrity. I simply said that anyone who says they don't support gerrymandering but then votes for gerrymandering is acting hypocritically.

I have far more respect for someone who simply admits that they support gerrymandering when it is to their benefit than people who try to reconcile why it is they voted for something they say they don't support.

Click to expand...

The reasoning you are employing here is indicative of the black/white, ingroup/outgroup false binary that has become so prevalent in American Christianity (an in evangelicalism, in particular); and which I think is a key component in many of the corrupt actions and morals that we see coming out of the church. It's a line of thought which can be wrought with ulterior motives, and which completely abandons context. Trying to moralize every action in that fashion is, in my opinion, a dangerous path to follow. At the very least, it leaves one with gaping blind spots, and with an inability to assess situations with any kind of compassion, understanding, or thoughtful reflection.

I also think your usage of the word "hypocritical" needs more thought and consideration. Saying that you are opposed to something but essentially having your hand forced to do it does not necessarily equate to hypocrisy.

Always in His Presence said:

Really?

Look closely:

States with All-Democratic Delegations​

State	Dem Seats	GOP Seats	Trump 2024 Vote %	Potential Mismatch
Massachusetts	9	0	~36%	~36% voted GOP, 0% of seats
Connecticut	5	0	~39%	Moderate mismatch
Hawaii	2	0	~34%	Small delegation limits options
New Hampshire	2	0	~47%	Notable mismatch
Maine	2	0	~45%	Notable mismatch
New Mexico	3	0	~44%	Moderate mismatch
Vermont	1	0	~33%	At-large, winner-take-all

---

States with All-Republican Delegations​

State	Dem Seats	GOP Seats	Harris 2024 Vote %	Potential Mismatch
Wyoming	0	1	~27%	At-large, winner-take-all
Arkansas	0	4	~34%	~34% voted Dem, 0% of seats
Oklahoma	0	5	~33%	Moderate mismatch
West Virginia	0	2	~29%	Small mismatch
Utah	0	4	~38%	Moderate mismatch
Idaho	0	2	~31%	Small mismatch
Montana	0	2	~41%	Notable mismatch
Iowa	0	4	~43%	Notable mismatch
Nebraska	0	3	~39%	Moderate mismatch

Neither side is innocent.

Would anyone support seats assigned in proportion of votes received.

Example - Arkansas would go from 0 Democrat Seats to 2

View attachment 378821

Click to expand...

Nice... more AI slop.

Claude is a great tool - but it requires proper guidance from its handler. Something which obviously wasn't done here.

MarkSB said:

Trying to moralize every action in that fashion is, in my opinion, a dangerous path to follow. At the very least, it leaves one with gaping blind spots, and with an inability to assess situations with any kind of compassion, understanding, or thoughtful reflection.

Click to expand...

Sticking to one's convictions and doing what one says is not "a dangerous path to follow". It's rare, I'll give you that, but it's not "dangerous" in the least.

MarkSB said:

I also think your usage of the word "hypocritical" needs more thought and consideration. Saying that you are opposed to something but essentially having your hand forced to do it does not necessarily equate to hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

No one's hand was forced. People chose of their own volition to vote for something they say they oppose.

And now, the flood gates are open. There's already rumblings of other states doing partisan redistricting. And before you know it, the whole nation could be gerrymandered, disenfranchising countless voters. All because enough people were foolish enough to believe that the way you stop gerrymandering is by voting for gerrymandering. That's kind of like thinking pouring gas on a fire will put it out.

Always in His Presence said:

How about eliminating gerrymandering all together and assign seats by voter count? if 40% of the state votes for Party A then Party A gets 40% of the seats.

Sounds like Democracy to me.

Click to expand...

Legalities aside, I'd be willing to give that a shot. AFAIK, that's how parliamentary systems work. This would be about the only real way for third parties to have any staying power at the national level.

I could see down sides, though. For one thing, I wonder how this would be different than a bigger version of the senate. Additionally, @essentialsaltes' point about not having a rep live in a district is a legitimate concern. I'd say not so much for having them reside in a specific place, but rather, not having a rep dedicated to a specific region, though I suppose that can cut both ways, too. Under the current system, if you have a good rep who's responsive, that's great; but if you have a bad one who isn't responsive, then you have nowhere else to turn.

probinson said:

Sticking to one's convictions and doing what one says is not "a dangerous path to follow". It's rare, I'll give you that, but it's not "dangerous" in the least.

Click to expand...

That's just the thing... "people need to stick to their convictions" is a guise that is used to cover up the true motivation - which is power and control. One can look at the "morals" of MAGA Christians and be baffled. Once you realize that political power and control is what reigns supreme, only then do their "morals" begin to make sense.

And that's not just MAGA Christians, American Christianity at large is rife with examples of this.

ETA: And let's be clear here - when you're talking about people sticking to their convictions, you're pointing the finger at other people and telling them that they need to do it. You're not speaking from a position of actually following the same convictions, and asking that others come along.

probinson said:

No one's hand was forced. People chose of their own volition to vote for something they say they oppose.

And now, the flood gates are open. There's already rumblings of other states doing partisan redistricting. And before you know it, the whole nation could be gerrymandered, disenfranchising countless voters. All because enough people were foolish enough to believe that the way you stop gerrymandering is by voting for gerrymandering. That's kind of like thinking pouring gas on a fire will put it out.

Click to expand...

The thing which is quite telling is that in all your arguments you are ignoring the original source of the problem. It's classic victim shaming and in-group/out group thinking. Trump, who I assume is "your guy" instigated the entire thing, and now you're pointing the finger at people who are fighting back and calling them hypocrites. You don't find that to be.... hypocritical?

JSRG said:

Virginians haven't made them be by statewide vote; even with as strong as they gerrymandered things, the prediction is they'd end up with 10 Democratic districts and 1 Republican district, meaning it's 10-1. An at-large election, if won by Democrats, would be 11-0 (an at-large election would also carry the risk that Republicans could somehow eke out a win in a statewide election in which case they'd get all 11 seats).

Click to expand...

I said "effectively". It is not precisely the old statewide slates of the early republic. They have done it in a different manor, but the effect is the same. The party with the majority of the support gets all (but one) of the seats.

JSRG said:

However, states can't do at-large elections or proportional representation even if they wanted to, because that's forbidden by federal law. Behold 2 U.S. Code § 2c:

In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).

Click to expand...

I was not aware that this had been passed into explict law. At large election was all but dead by the mid-20th century. I suspect the "except that a state" language applies to just one or two states.

JSRG said:

The 91st Congress was 1969-1971, if anyone is curious. As one can see, this requires states to have single-member electoral districts for the House of Representatives. At-large elections as well as proportional representation (even a mixture of proportional representation and single-member districts) are therefore prohibited. For a state to set that up, this law would need to be changed. Which, of course, Congress can do. Congress could not only choose to allow at-large elections and proportional representation, but it could require states to do either for the House of Representatives if it passed a law doing so. However, until such time as this law is changed, states are required to have single-member districts for the House.

A state is fully free to have their own legislature be done via at-large or proportional representation, though, and Congress can neither require nor prohibit any manner of election of them, beyond any rules that are already in the Constitution. As far as I'm aware, though, all states use single-member districts for their legislature.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with what the 91st Congress did. I am not for party lists, proportional representation, or any of that nonsense.

JSRG said:

One thing I'm not sure about is whether Congress can do a nationwide proportional representation vote by law. It definitely can require proportional representation within each state (i.e. if one state has 40% vote for a party, 40% of the seats for that state go to that party), but I'm not sure if they can have votes in one state affect the Representatives from another state, which is what a national proportional vote would do (i.e. if 40% of the country votes for a particular party, 40% of seats go to that party). That one would probably require an amendment. But proportional representation within each state could be required by a federal law.

Click to expand...

Seats in the House are apportioned *to the States*. Not only would a nationwide party list require modifying the Constitution, but it would completely break the representational nature of the body.

MarkSB said:

That's just the thing... "people need to stick to their convictions" is a guise that is used to cover up the true motivation - which is power and control.

Click to expand...

How is "sticking to your conviction" at all about "power and control" when doing so is detrimental to you?

MarkSB said:

One can look at the "morals" of MAGA Christians and be baffled.

Click to expand...

On that, we absolutely agree.

MarkSB said:

Once you realize that political power and control is what reigns supreme, only then do their "morals" begin to make sense.

Click to expand...

Trump is the reason I am no longer a registered Republican. I can not pretend that the Republican Party under Trump is representative of my morals and convictions. That's why I've been a registered independent since the Trump political era.

MarkSB said:

And that's not just MAGA Christians, American Christianity at large is rife with examples of this.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Pointing the finger at all of Christianity seems equally as problematic as the alleged finger-pointing you talk about in the next part of your post.

MarkSB said:

ETA: And let's be clear here - when you're talking about people sticking to their convictions, you're pointing the finger at other people and telling them that they need to do it. You're not speaking from a position of actually following the same convictions, and asking that others come along.

Click to expand...

I don't really care if people stick to their convictions. For me, it's about personal integrity. If other people want to compromise on their convictions that's certainly their prerogative.

MarkSB said:

The thing which is quite telling is that in all your arguments you are ignoring the original source of the problem. It's classic victim shaming and in-group/out group thinking. Trump, who I assume is "your guy" instigated the entire thing, and now you're pointing the finger at people who are fighting back and calling them hypocrites. You don't find that to be.... hypocritical?

Click to expand...

As I've already stated, Trump is absolutely not "my guy". And the people in TX who wanted gerrymandering for political power are equally if not moreso hypocritical than the "victims" who are whinging about how someone else started it.

Let's be clear about who I'm calling hypocritical. ANYONE who says they don't support something but then votes for the thing they say they don't want. ANYONE who decries the disenfranchisement of voters and the harm to democracy while simultaneously voting to disenfranchise voters and harm decmocracy.

probinson said:

How is "sticking to your conviction" at all about "power and control" when doing so is detrimental to you?

Click to expand...

It's not at all detrimental to you. You're asking other people to do something (let themselves be run over) that you yourself are not doing.

As I said in my post - You're not sticking to your convictions and asking other people to follow. You're not there making the sacrifice and asking them to do the same.

probinson said:

On that, we absolutely agree.



Trump is the reason I am no longer a registered Republican. I can not pretend that the Republican Party under Trump is representative of my morals and convictions. That's why I've been a registered independent since the Trump political era.

Click to expand...

Being a registered independent doesn't mean much if you're willing to employ the same arguments and reasoning as the party that you claim to object to.

If you are truly that opposed to gerrymandering, at best you could find both parties at fault for the current situation. But instead, you're choosing to focus your criticisms on one party. When you try to sell such viewpoints as being about morality, no rational and truly discerning person is going to be fooled.

probinson said:

Hmm. Pointing the finger at all of Christianity seems equally as problematic as the alleged finger-pointing you talk about in the next part of your post.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that saying "American Christianity at large is rife with examples of this" is the same as "pointing my finger at all of Christianity".

Throughout history, segments of Christianity (generally speaking) have undeniably been on the wrong side of morality. Are we supposed to just sit back and allow that to perpetuate itself?

probinson said:

I don't really care if people stick to their convictions. For me, it's about personal integrity. If other people want to compromise on their convictions that's certainly their prerogative.



As I've already stated, Trump is absolutely not "my guy". And the people in TX who wanted gerrymandering for political power are equally if not moreso hypocritical than the "victims" who are whinging about how someone else started it.

Let's be clear about who I'm calling hypocritical. ANYONE who says they don't support something but then votes for the thing they say they don't want. ANYONE who decries the disenfranchisement of voters and the harm to democracy while simultaneously voting to disenfranchise voters and harm decmocracy.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Perhaps I haven't read your posts well enough, but the most notable portion that I saw was you saying that the Democrats were hypocrites for saying they were against it but then voting for it, and you had more respect for the Republicans because at least they weren't pretending to be against it. (An analysis which I don't think is accurate, but whatever). Anyone with eyes can see the blatant bias and complete lack of objectivity in that argument.

probinson said:

Trump is the reason I am no longer a registered Republican. I can not pretend that the Republican Party under Trump is representative of my morals and convictions. That's why I've been a registered independent since the Trump political era.

Click to expand...

As I recall, you’re a (fellow) Pennsylvanian. I, too, left the Republican Party* (in 2018), but felt the need to switch to Democratic Party for the simple reason that our beloved commonwealth has closed primaries, and felt my participation in the electoral process deserved more than just voting in the General Elections.

*an admittedly Rockefeller Republican

Say it aint so said:

I think we have already been down this road haven't we?

Click to expand...

Not as far as I remember, so would you be willing to answer my question?

Hans Blaster said:

I was not aware that this had been passed into explict law. At large election was all but dead by the mid-20th century. I suspect the "except that a state" language applies to just one or two states.

Click to expand...

I believe at-large election of Representatives, and a requirement of people to be elected by single-member districts, have been banned since Apportionment Act of 1842. The 1967 law I linked to is just the current version of the law that requires single-member districts.

Hans Blaster said:

I fully agree with what the 91st Congress did. I am not for party lists, proportional representation, or any of that nonsense.

Click to expand...

I am in favor of them, or at least mixed member proportional representation. I think fully proportional representation isn't a good idea, though I think I'd still take it over the current system given it destroys gerrymandering and allows more parties to be competitive. But mixed member proportional representation, where you have some seats go to single member districts, and some seats done via proportional representation, seems like a good idea to me (it would require an expansion of the House to work properly if the proportionality is by state rather than national--which is what you'd likely have to do without an amendment--but the House needs an expansion regardless).

Hans Blaster said:

Seats in the House are apportioned *to the States*. Not only would a nationwide party list require modifying the Constitution, but it would completely break the representational nature of the body.

Click to expand...

There's no system that ticks all the boxes. Australia has the same system as the UK and it has its faults. But it kinda works.

We vote for local 'members of parliament', each of whom represent an area about double the size of a local council. They are either Liberal (your Republican), Labor (Democrat) or Independent or Green or some variation of any number of minor parties. They theoretically are meant to represent the wants and needs of the electorate in which they are standing (they invariably live there and have a local office). But people actually vote for their preferred party, so they vote for the person that is a member of that party.

Whichever party gets the most members of parliament gets to be the ruling party and their leader (which they decide) will be our Prime Minister. The party can, and often do, have internal squabbles and vote in a different person as leader, so we change Prime Minister all too often, even during the 3 year term of a parliament. The proletariat get no say in that. The party decides that internally.

How you vote for your local Representatives is roughly the same as our system. But in a federal election you are only voting for one person to lead the country. How on earth this isn't first past the post is totally beyond me. It's the equivalent of a referendum here. Do you want A or B? 51% of the country votes for A and that's it.

Pommer said:

As I recall, you’re a (fellow) Pennsylvanian. I, too, left the Republican Party* (in 2018), but felt the need to switch to Democratic Party for the simple reason that our beloved commonwealth has closed primaries, and felt my participation in the electoral process deserved more than just voting in the General Elections.

*an admittedly Rockefeller Republican

Click to expand...

Thanks for Fetterman.